Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3708 (MAD)

S. Rajendran v. Director General of Police

2015-12-03

N.KIRUBAKARAN, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. The appellant has come up with the above appeal, challenging the order of the learned Judge, passed in the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the order, cancelling his selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II. 2. Heard Mr.ST.Sasidharan Tamilkani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The appellant was selected provisionally for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade-II in the year 2006. He was also issued with an appointment order directing him to report for training on 29.02.2008. 4. But in the meantime, the Head of the Department came to know of the registration of a criminal complaint in Cr.No147 of 2006 on the file of Panavadali Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 and 353 I.P.C. Therefore he was not permitted to join duty. 5. The appellant claimed that in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4360 of 2008, this Court quashed the criminal complaint in C.C.No.60 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. But by an order dated 27.05.2010, the Director General of Police cancelled the selection of the appellant on the ground that at the time of his selection, the criminal complaint was pending and that it was only after the order of appointment was issued, that the complaint was quashed. 6. Challenging the order of the Director General of Police, the appellant came up with a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.7766 of 2010. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge, forcing the appellant to come up with the above appeal. 7. The main contention raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the criminal case having already been quashed, pendency of the criminal case during the time of selection, could not have been held against him. However, the learned Judge rejected the contention based upon the manner in which Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, had been framed. The said Rule reads as follows: "14(b). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority. However, the learned Judge rejected the contention based upon the manner in which Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, had been framed. The said Rule reads as follows: "14(b). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority. (i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and (ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and Explanation (1) A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case. Explanation (2) A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment." 8. The Rule was also upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan v. Chairman, T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 . Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition, was perfectly in order. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.